A 2nd referendum is undemocratic! How the hell does anyone come to that conclusion without resorting to mind-bending contortions of logic and fact?
£350 million for the NHS emblazoned across the bus - that was a load of bollocks, and they even admitted it. Easiest deal ever - that's manifestly been proven a lie. It'll hurt them more than it hurts us - basic arithmetic proves that to be utter garbage.
What's wrong with having another vote and checking whether the will of the people has changed? This issue is so massive and important that it's crucial we get an accurate assessment of what the people actually want now that the consequences have become clearer. 52% is hardly a ringing endorsement or an overwhelming majority in anyone's language, and the latest polls empirically prove that the will of the people is now firmly Remain by a margin of between 9 and 12%, well beyond the accepted margin of polling error of 2 or 3%. It's still just a poll though, but certainly by a large enough margin to warrant a new referendum.
Given the foregoing, any talk of a betrayal of the electorate is fatuous in the extreme and smacks of desperation; leaving the EU when the will of the people has demonstrably changed in the intervening 3 years is the betrayal, a betrayal so heinous as to be crypto-fascist in intent.
If, following a second referendum, people still want to leave the EU (which now seems highly unlikely), then fine, we'll leave. If people have changed their minds, we'll stay. Nearly 3 years is a very long time for the electorate to reflect on their decisions. People can and do change their minds - it's what democracy is all about - especially when everything the Leave camp promised has turned to dust and they engaged (and still engage) in lying on an industrial scale.
Leavers keep banging on about the Irish 2nd vote on the Lisbon Treaty as if it were the EU that changed the minds of the Irish in some Machiavellian manner - bonkers, and the argument of a self-professed numpty who is unable to see the illogicality of their own argument! I'd like them to explain the mechanism, as I could use it on my Mrs. No, it was the Irish themselves who changed their minds - no one else. No tinfoil hats or theta waves emanating from Brussels.
I'm also seeing a campaign of misinformation about the Lisbon Treaty being promulgated by self- appointed 'experts' who have very obviously never read one word of the treaty and are merely being used as trolls by the dark forces of the kleptocracy to cut and paste fake news, from the UK being forced to join the Euro if we remained, to Brussels being on a sovereignty power grab and vetoes being rescinded. This can be refuted by simply reading the Lisbon Treaty, that's of course that's too hard for the Ultra Brexiteers who are not exactly noted for their research skills. If you see this nonsense, ask the person to quote the relevant sentences from the Lisbon Treaty itself – that will shut them up.
A single vote cast in stone is reminiscent of Germany in 1933, when no subsequent votes were allowed by a fascist dictatorship. Was that democracy? Didn't turn out very well in the end, did it?
The only possible reason for someone not to support a 2nd referendum is because they fear the result. Calling it anti-democratic is so patently a fallacy that it defies all sense and is akin to declaring black is white.
Rees-Mogg is seeing the chance of making millions out of crashing markets disappearing before his eyes - that's why he and his fellow disaster capitalists don't want a 2nd referendum. They thought they'd managed, against all expectation, to get some incredibly uninformed people to hand them victory (and money) on a plate.
If anyone is still on the fence about Brexit: Putin likes it, Trump loves it, the EDL want it, a criminal murdered an MP for it, thugs and racists are willing to violently fight for it, speculators want it, tax-dodgers desperately need it, the Daily Mail and the Sun support it and some bloke down the pub, with not a scintilla of knowledge about international trade and believes he knows more than 'experts', is rather keen on it. This should help you figure out why it's not in our best interests - unless, of course, you're phenomenally dumb and like being led by the nose by those least interested in your problems. Time for the grown-ups to act.
Yesterday I saw this on Facebook:
It was clearly portrayed as Herman van Rompuy commenting about Britain and the Brexit negotiations and designed to get Brexiteers frothing at the mouth with righteous indignation (which it has), but on closer inspection of the wording (courtesy of Google) it turned out to be part of a 2015 interview that went as follows: ...former President of the European Council said the EU takes the boldest decisions only in crisis situations, “when we have our backs against the wall and are staring at the abyss with a knife against our throats”.
Enough said about betrayal?
£350 million for the NHS emblazoned across the bus - that was a load of bollocks, and they even admitted it. Easiest deal ever - that's manifestly been proven a lie. It'll hurt them more than it hurts us - basic arithmetic proves that to be utter garbage.
What's wrong with having another vote and checking whether the will of the people has changed? This issue is so massive and important that it's crucial we get an accurate assessment of what the people actually want now that the consequences have become clearer. 52% is hardly a ringing endorsement or an overwhelming majority in anyone's language, and the latest polls empirically prove that the will of the people is now firmly Remain by a margin of between 9 and 12%, well beyond the accepted margin of polling error of 2 or 3%. It's still just a poll though, but certainly by a large enough margin to warrant a new referendum.
Given the foregoing, any talk of a betrayal of the electorate is fatuous in the extreme and smacks of desperation; leaving the EU when the will of the people has demonstrably changed in the intervening 3 years is the betrayal, a betrayal so heinous as to be crypto-fascist in intent.
If, following a second referendum, people still want to leave the EU (which now seems highly unlikely), then fine, we'll leave. If people have changed their minds, we'll stay. Nearly 3 years is a very long time for the electorate to reflect on their decisions. People can and do change their minds - it's what democracy is all about - especially when everything the Leave camp promised has turned to dust and they engaged (and still engage) in lying on an industrial scale.
Leavers keep banging on about the Irish 2nd vote on the Lisbon Treaty as if it were the EU that changed the minds of the Irish in some Machiavellian manner - bonkers, and the argument of a self-professed numpty who is unable to see the illogicality of their own argument! I'd like them to explain the mechanism, as I could use it on my Mrs. No, it was the Irish themselves who changed their minds - no one else. No tinfoil hats or theta waves emanating from Brussels.
I'm also seeing a campaign of misinformation about the Lisbon Treaty being promulgated by self- appointed 'experts' who have very obviously never read one word of the treaty and are merely being used as trolls by the dark forces of the kleptocracy to cut and paste fake news, from the UK being forced to join the Euro if we remained, to Brussels being on a sovereignty power grab and vetoes being rescinded. This can be refuted by simply reading the Lisbon Treaty, that's of course that's too hard for the Ultra Brexiteers who are not exactly noted for their research skills. If you see this nonsense, ask the person to quote the relevant sentences from the Lisbon Treaty itself – that will shut them up.
A single vote cast in stone is reminiscent of Germany in 1933, when no subsequent votes were allowed by a fascist dictatorship. Was that democracy? Didn't turn out very well in the end, did it?
The only possible reason for someone not to support a 2nd referendum is because they fear the result. Calling it anti-democratic is so patently a fallacy that it defies all sense and is akin to declaring black is white.
Rees-Mogg is seeing the chance of making millions out of crashing markets disappearing before his eyes - that's why he and his fellow disaster capitalists don't want a 2nd referendum. They thought they'd managed, against all expectation, to get some incredibly uninformed people to hand them victory (and money) on a plate.
If anyone is still on the fence about Brexit: Putin likes it, Trump loves it, the EDL want it, a criminal murdered an MP for it, thugs and racists are willing to violently fight for it, speculators want it, tax-dodgers desperately need it, the Daily Mail and the Sun support it and some bloke down the pub, with not a scintilla of knowledge about international trade and believes he knows more than 'experts', is rather keen on it. This should help you figure out why it's not in our best interests - unless, of course, you're phenomenally dumb and like being led by the nose by those least interested in your problems. Time for the grown-ups to act.
Yesterday I saw this on Facebook:
It was clearly portrayed as Herman van Rompuy commenting about Britain and the Brexit negotiations and designed to get Brexiteers frothing at the mouth with righteous indignation (which it has), but on closer inspection of the wording (courtesy of Google) it turned out to be part of a 2015 interview that went as follows: ...former President of the European Council said the EU takes the boldest decisions only in crisis situations, “when we have our backs against the wall and are staring at the abyss with a knife against our throats”.
Enough said about betrayal?
No comments:
Post a Comment